CRM-M/50666/2026 of MANISH KUMAR YADAV Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 11 September 2026

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.345 dated 26.9.2025 under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 61(2), 241 of BNS and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000 added later on), registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Gurugram.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 9.1.2026. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question & he himself is a victim at the hands of co-accused namely; Saurabh Singh and Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, who had misused his bank account. Learned

counsel has further urged that the said co-accused namely Saurabh Singh and Mrityunjay Kumar Singh have been extended the concession of regular bail by the concerned Magisterial Court. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is a man aged 33 years with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

3. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 10.9.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 9.1.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was presented on 6.3.2026. Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6. As per custody certificate dated 10.9.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 8

months and 2 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

In addition to the above, the petitioner shall be obligated to either deposit cash surety, FDRs or Bank Guarantee in favour of the Court releasing him on bail to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 11.9.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No